Right now we have three C.S. Secretaries of War: Judah Benjamin, Jefferson Davis, and Emmanuel Sellars. I'm assuming that if ML4E keeps going, well have James Seddon soon enough.
- We'll just see how long I maintain the energy. I do find writing up main characters tring but secondary ones kind of fun. Incidentally, was Benjamin really a Sec. of War? The article doesn't say so, nor the OTL template. ML4E 21:37, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
Is is worth creating a category for, or should we skip it as growth potential seems limited? TR 04:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say unless HT starts writing another Civil War story, we should go with the latter option. Turtle Fan 15:05, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- I don't recall, were any mentioned in the TL-191 series? If any were, it would have had to have been in the first or second trilogies. ML4E 21:37, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Just Sellars. TR 21:58, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a bit surprised no one mentioned the Secretary's name in HFR. It would have been an opportunity for a historical cameo and it seems HT might have wanted to do so for the sake of completeness at that point.
- Meanwhile, in SA we had not one but two POVs who were intimately involved in high command decisions from the first day of the war to the last, and any number of non-POV characters who featured prominently, and not one of these commanders ever once had a meeting with the Secretary of War or spoke with him on the phone or saw his name penciled into their daily calendars or mentioned him in passing or bothered asking him to join the Presidential evacuation party after the fall of Richmond. But, by that point in the series, such glaring omissions had lost their ability to astound me. Turtle Fan 22:24, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- I'm rather glad we've adopted that second prong. TR 16:00, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a useful one. It seems to have sort of just happened, doesn't it? Turtle Fan 19:45, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Pretty much. I think it was when we realized that some of the categories we have just aren't going to grow ever. TR 20:15, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- That'll do it. I think the Texans had something to do with it, didn't they?
- In part. I think it actually went back to the Miscellaneous heads of state, etc. That's the first time I can remember thinking that growth potential ought to count for something. The Texans was probably when it was articulated first. TR 22:33, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe we should go through some of our old categories and see if there are any which wouldn't've been created had the standard been in place at the time. We could consider deleting them. Turtle Fan 22:24, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- Probably. I think we started with families.
- I confess, I'd prefer to leave the singleton nationality categories for now, just because nationality is one of our most conspicuous means of categorization. Articles without it seem "lacking". TR 22:33, October 20, 2009 (UTC)
- I agree to that. I've long believed in exempting categories necessary for uniformity even from the first test. Hmm--If we exempt nationality, maybe we could create Texans after all. Of course, since all our Texans already have other nationalities, maybe not. Turtle Fan 03:24, October 21, 2009 (UTC)